Millan i Tornes v. Andorra  | 1999

An end to government control over the right to appeal to the Constitutional Tribunal

Background

Mr Millan wanted to lodge an appeal with the Andorran Constitutional Tribunal, claiming that his trial had been unfair. According to the law, he first had to get permission from the State Counsel’s Office. The State Counsel refused.   

Mr Millan complained that the decision of a government body meant that he was denied access to a court.  

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Mr Millan and the Andorran government reached a friendly settlement after the European court agreed to look at the case. The government agreed that Mr Millan should be able to appeal to the Constitutional Court without first obtaining permission from the State Council.

Follow-up

In 1999 the law was changed, so that anyone who thinks their constitutional right to judicial protection has been infringed can appeal directly to the Constitutional Tribunal.

Themes:

Related examples

Justice for the family of asbestos poisoning victim

Hans Moor was exposed to asbestos during his work in the 1960s and 70s. This gave him cancer, which was diagnosed in 2004. Hans Moor died in 2005, aged 58. Just before his death, Mr Moor had brought a claim for damages against his former employer for failing to take precautions against exposure to asbestos. The claim was continued by his wife and children.

Read more

Failure to investigate attack on Roma settlement leads to local reforms

All of the Roma inhabitants of a village had their houses burnt down by other locals. The authorities were warned, but refused to intervene. After the attack, the authorities did not investigate properly and the courts failed to give the victims a fair trial. Their application to the European court led to compensation and local programmes to combat discrimination and exclusion.

Read more

Reinstatement of judge said to be the victim of political corruption

Oleksandr Volkov was dismissed from his role as a Supreme Court judge. His lawyer argued that he had been the victim of political corruption, which sought to undermine the independence of the Ukrainian judiciary. The European court ruled that his dismissal had been filled with bias and manipulation, in breach of his basic rights. Mr Volkov was reinstated as a Supreme Court judge in 2015.

Read more